PMs and presidents: in another leader's shoes

As we look at the group of Republicans running to be president, one is reminded of the old saying that in a democracy the people get the government they deserve.

The problem however is that democracies ain't democracies. Americans and Australians, for example, go through rather different paths to end up with the leader they deserve.

In his "Plácido Domingo speech" in 1990, Paul Keating argued that Australia had never had a great leader of the stature of an Abraham Lincoln, a Franklin Roosevelt or a Winston Churchill. Whether this is accurate is one for historians to debate, but of those three only Churchill comes out of the Westminster system. When observing the current candidates and the past US presidents and past Australian prime ministers, I wonder which nation and which democratic process ends up with the better leaders, and perhaps more interestingly, which leaders from one country would rise to the top in the other country's democratic system?

In the Westminster system the Head of Government is distinct from the Head of State and is in effect merely the first among equals. It's one of the reasons why you find the issue of war service such a major one in US politics. The president is the Head of State and the Commander in Chief, and much like monarchs of old (and present) the role has traditionally been viewed through a military lens. Bill Clinton was the first president post-World War II not to have served in the armed forces, and it was a major issue he had to counter during the campaign – especially as George HW Bush had won the Distinguished Flying Cross as a naval aviator in WWII.

Such a need for service is less pronounced now given George W only served in the Texas National Guard and went nowhere near the South China Sea during the Vietnam War and Barack Obama is the second straight Democratic president not to have served a day in uniform. The realities of generational shift mean the era of WWII veterans has long passed, and the percentage of US politicians likely to have been in the armed forces will continue to decline.

This aspect would not have made too much of a difference when examining the post-WWII generation of Australian PMs: Holt, Gorton, McMahon and Whitlam all served during WWII to varying degrees. McEwen was too young for WWI and too old for WWII.

However, the picture is different for the PMs who held office before Holt. Chifley and Curtin did not serve. Curtin was a fervent anti-conscriptionist during WWI - that in itself probably would have killed off any chances of him becoming a president in a US-style system. Robert Menzies also avoided enlistment during WWI despite being 19 at the outbreak of war and also holding a commission in the University of Melbourne's militia unit. The suggestion that as two of his brothers had already enrolled his family had made enough of a sacrifice might have not been an impediment to his becoming PM, but there was no way for example that John F Kennedy thought that way during WWII, and had he done so, there would be no way he would have become president.

The issue of religion is one best ignored. The role it plays in US Presidential Politics is due more to US history (or twisted views of that history) and grubby politics than the actual presidential system. Despite the clear provision of freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, US presidents are expected to give a big nod to their church-going activities. You only need to see Rick Perry's advert "Strong" to see he has got so confused by this aspect that he thinks he's running for Pope. On this score, Julia Gillard would have been no chance at becoming president, and Bob Hawke would likely have kept much quieter about his lack of religious belief and made much more about the fact his father was a Congregationalist Minister.

But issue of wartime service and religion aside, the running for both offices requires different skills. The leader in the Westminster system is very much the leader of the party. He or she must run caucus and the cabinet and also front up in parliament where she or he must argue for pieces of legislation and deal with Question Time. Question Time may not matter to anyone outside the 2600 postcode, but it sure as hell does to those within.

On this score we can rule out Dwight Eisenhower - no way would the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe subject himself to the grind of dealing with factions and backbenchers and then having the Leader of the Opposition accusing him of lacking knowledge of policy. Ike was drafted in from outside politics straight into the presidency. That in itself is a rarity in the US System; in Australia, impossible. The nearest we have is Campbell Newman running to be Queensland premier despite not being in parliament. But he is a politician, not someone who, like Eisenhower, had never been a member of a party (and indeed the Democratic Party tried to get Ike to run for it in 1948).

The party politics of being PM is completely divorced from the role the president plays in the US (where he is seen to be, dare I say it, "presidential"). When looking back over the past 50-odd years, the one president I believe would have thrived the most in a Westminster system is the one who thrived the most in the US congressional system - Lyndon B Johnson.

LBJ was a pure party machine man. He knew how to play politics tough. Allegations of ballot stuffing during the 1948 Senate primary suggest he'd have no problems dealing with the political world of branch stacking. His work as Senate Majority leader from 1952 to 1960 demonstrates he was a politician who knew how to marshal the numbers in a way that would have seen him deal comfortably with the cross benchers in the Australian Parliament. His career in Congress also suggests there would be no way he would let a pipsqueak rich-boy underling, JFK, get in front if it were a race to be PM. The skills of being a leader in a parliamentary or congressional role are so starkly different to being that of president that since 1900 only two people in the US have been their party's leader in either the House of Representatives or the Senate and also become president: LBJ and Gerald Ford - both of whom came to the presidency through being vice-president and their presidents respectively dying (JFK) and resigning (Nixon). And of the two, only LBJ won an election as president.

It is unlikely Kennedy would have survived in the Westminster world. He may have enjoyed Question Time, but he was no backroom dealer or policy wonk. Unless he was able to get his brother, Robert, to be his numbers man in caucus, I think he would have struggled. Also his glamour image has never been one that has really gelled with the role of PM.

Nixon had no glamour, would he have risen to be prime minister? He certainly knew how to play it dirty, but would his actions have allowed him to survive had he been PM? Nixon told David Frost, "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal". Such an argument has never been tried on by prime ministers, and if Nixon had got to the top job in Australia he would very likely have gone to jail upon leaving the office, because unlike Gerald Ford, his prime ministerial successor would not be able to pardon him of all crimes.

Jimmy Carter? Many people can't even work out how Carter became president, let alone thinking he would survive the cut and thrust of the parliamentary party room to rise to the leadership.

Ronald Reagan was a governor and then a president. He was not a parliamentary man. He thrived when speaking at public events with many flags behind him and an audience wanting to feel good, but he would have struggled with the scrutiny during Question Time for most of his presidential years. The US president can avoid such scrutiny by merely limiting press conferences, and Reagan limited them by a hell of lot - less than one every two months. You also have to wonder if he would have bothered with the whole process. You don't just become PM in the way you can become governor of a state. Reagan essentially got nominated to run for Governor of California on the back of a speech. In Australia such a thing might have seen him pre-selected in a safe seat (if he was lucky and was able to win over the local branch) then he'd be a backbencher, maybe a parliamentary secretary (if his party had won the election) and then maybe a Ministerial job and then… snore. Reagan was acting in TV westerns in 1965; two years later he was running California. That speed doesn't happen in Australian politics.

I think however, Reagan's vice-president, George HW Bush would've done well in our system. Look at his CV: in the House of Representatives for six years, does the party a favour by running for the Senate in 1970, loses but stays in good with the party such that Nixon appoints him Ambassador to the UN, then he becomes chairman of the Republican National Committee (there have been 65 RNC chairmen, only Bush has become president), then he gets made head of the CIA by Gerald Ford.

The guy was a machine man who worked his way to the top. I think he would have done well in the Westminster system.

Bill Clinton? The guy is a driven political animal. So driven that you think he would have adapted to become PM if that was what he was aiming to become. He however came to the presidency by way of a governorship, and like Reagan, he strikes me as one who may not have bothered with the long and often powerless road to power.

George W Bush? Bush was not real good at the whole speechifying side of things - even when he did have it written in front of him. He would have been crucified in parliament. Were he in the Australian system, he most likely would have received a good senate spot on the back of his dad's influence and perhaps could have risen as high as minister for agriculture. But leader or even an MP? Not a chance.

And Obama? The man was born out of Chicago politics. He knew how to play the numbers to get the nomination and was prepared to go through the senate rather than a governorship. He loves to talk policy and thus arguing for legislation in parliament would have been within his scope. You get the feeling he'd enjoy Question Time. I think he would have done OK in our system.

But what about Australian leaders?

Gillard and Rudd? No chance. There may be a couple words that spring to mind when describing both, but presidential is not one of them. Tony Abbott has certainly got the religion aspect down pat, but the guy is a brawler with little presence. Were he American the best he could aim for is to be speaker of the house.

I see Howard as a possible George HW Bush type - a guy who only became president on the back of the Reagan legacy and who lost twice to more charismatic figures - Reagan in 1980 and Clinton in 1992. Running for president requires a charisma and presence that needs you to be elevated above others - yes the party is important, but the individual is paramount. Howard was much more suited to the parliamentary debate and workings.

Paul Keating, like Howard, thrived in parliament. His US equivalent for me is LBJ. Both were good at dolling out the criticism - Johnson's line on Gerald Ford that he "was so dumb he couldn't fart and chew gum at the same time" has a Keatingesque ring to it. But Keating most likely, I suspect, could not be bothered with the pomp and show of being president.

Bob Hawke on the other hand would have thrived in a presidential system. He is the closest we have to a PM who was drafted in from outside politics (even though of course he was always in politics). Hawke loved the centre stage, loved to delegate, loved to be the man in charge and, I believe, would have loved to be president.

Looking at the lists it seems not only do both systems deliver the leaders the country deserves but they also shape the type of leaders we get. Would Australia have been better without our PMs who could not cope with the presidential role? Would America currently be less troubled if the president were required to be a prime minister? That is a big hypothetical, but what is clear is that if the democratic systems in both nations had been swapped, both nations would not have had the leaders they have had.

Be thankful or wistful as you please.

Greg Jericho is an amateur blogger who spends too much of his spare time writing about politics and not enough time watching all the DVDs he buys each weekend. His blog can be found here.

Latest Episode

Hot Topic

The Prime Minister has announced Australia will be expanding its military role in Iraq for up to two years. Tony Abbott has signed off on sending 300 Australian soldiers for a joint mission with New Zealand.

It's a fundamental human yearning to be a part of something bigger than one's self, and maybe that's what drove my mate Ash to die, far from home, in a bloody foreign war against Islamic State, writes C August Elliott.